Thursday, February 17, 2011

Substantiating claims

My recent marking of the horror of the Reagan legacy prompted an anonymous response which I included in a second article. That one prompted a second anonymous response (I had better call this one A2) objecting to something in the second article.

I wrote:

• Vast corruption -- An extraordinary number of Reagan appointees went to prison or resigned under pressure because of corruption of many kinds. Republicans conducted a feast of public looting during the Reagan years.

A2 responded:

I dislike seeing you just forward unsubstantiated charges. For many of the charges against Ronnie, I accept as reasonable arguing point.

However, the charge of "Vast Corruption"? I know of no good measure. In fact, the only attempts at measuring I've seen fail. Charging the Republicans with corruption immediately struck me as such foolish rhetoric as to prompt me to write. When you use such an unsubstantiated argument, you allow the reverse. Far too many Americans believe the reverse, that Democrats are already vastly corrupt. Passing it on as you have only perpetuates the gulf of misunderstanding.

I find myself is a strange space defending someone I loath. Please understand that I agree is principle. My issue is with some of the sloppy arguments you've accumulated in your posts.

In that second post I had condensed what A1 wrote. The posting was long enough without it. This is the full point A1 wrote:

• Vast corruption -- An extraordinary number of Reagan appointees went to prison or resigned under pressure because of corruption of many kinds. Republicans conducted a feast of public looting during the Reagan years. The largest and most destructive example was IranGate -- the diversion of foreign aid from its legislated purpose of propping up the Shah of Iran's corrupt dictatorship to purchase weapons for a right-wing counterinsurgency in Nicaragua -- truly shocking and amoral political chicanery.

Does that help?

Now, for a bit of confession: I personally know both A1 and A2. As I am anonymous, so shall responses by email be. From my knowledge of A1 I trust whatever he says he is able to back up. If he wishes to provide more details I will post them. I personally don't have the time or desire to independently substantiate his claims. But I wouldn't call those claims unsubstantiated.

As for the rest of what I write, I try as much as possible to provide a link for any claim I include. Readers are able to see if the originator can substantiate any claims. Any claims I make myself I try to label as such and provide my reasoning. However, I am aware I am not writing scholarly papers (yes, I've written a few). I'm more interested in discussing ideas than getting all the details correct.